Re: Durango's RICD Application, Case No. 7-06CW9

Home Browse Search

-2- important role that is consistent with the Board's other statutory mandates. The Supreme Court recognized that "the CWCB must also consider `[s]uch other factors as may be determined appropriate for evaluation of recreational in- channel diversions and set forth in rules adopted by the board, after public notice and comment.' Section 37- 92- 102(6)(b)(VI). No additional factors have been set forth in rules adopted by the CWCB pursuant to this provision." Since the Gunnison decision, however, the Board has adopted a new factor, and thus there are six factors for consideration by this Board. Following is the Staff's analysis regarding the findings of fact related to the six factors as well as several recommendations, as provided for under Senate Bill 216. Staff Report Regarding the Six Factors 1. Whether the adjudication and administration of the RICD would impair the ability of Colorado to fully develop and place to consumptive Beneficial Use its Compact Entitlements. Pursuant to SB 216, the Board must consider the RICD's effect on Colorado's ability to develop its compact entitlements. Again the Gunnison decision is instructive: "Whether a RICD shields waters from a consumptive use that would otherwise be available under a particular compact is a factor for the CWCB to consider in reaching its recommendation." Thus, the most pertinent question is whether there are there times when free river conditions exist in the basin that will no longer exist with the imposition of the RICD water right. More specifically the pertinent inquiry is whether there are times when there are free river conditions that exist upstream of the RICD, when the RICD water right would not be satisfied, and thus, the RICD water right could call water down through the RICD reach, and shielding waters from a consumptive use that would otherwise be available under the Colorado River Compact and Upper Colorado River Compact (collectively "the Colorado River compacts "). Colorado's apportionment of Colorado River water is 51.75% of the 7.5 maf apportioned to the Upper Colorado River Basin, which translates to 3.855 million acre feet ( "maf'). The U.S. Bureau of Reclamations Consumptive Uses and Losses Report for the period 1996 through 2000 shows that Colorado's average consumptive use during that period was 2.064 maf to which 353,000 acre feet ( "af') must be added for Colorado's share of CRSP evaporation for a total of a total consumption of 2.417 maf. Based on previous analysis, Colorado has facilities in place that have consumptively used a maximum of 2.628 maf. Thus, Colorado has another 1.2 maf that it could consumptively use pursuant to the terms of the Colorado and Upper Colorado River Compacts. The maximum consumptive use of water to date by Colorado in the San Juan River Basin has been approximately 260,000 af. Colorado's presently consumes about 200,000 of of water from the San Juan Basin based on Reclamation consumptive uses and losses report for the period 1996 to 2000. New Mexico is entitled to consumptively use up to 642,000 of of water from the San Juan River Basin and after adding in its proportionate share of CRSP evaporation will consume about 698,000 af. Just under 70% of New Mexico's uses occur or will occur above or be supplied by water from Navajo Reservoir. Thus, only approximately 200,000 of of consumptive uses are supplied by tributary inflows to the river below Navajo Reservoir. Water users in New Mexico have indicated that during the irrigation season when flows drop below approximately 400 cfs on the Animas that they begin to feel real shortages. Thus, consumptive uses of Animas River water would appear to account for between 60 and 65 percent of the consumptive uses below Navajo Reservoir. Flood Protection • Water Project Planning and Finance • Stream and Lake Protection Water Supply Protection • Conservation Planning